1. State and Society
Chapter Three
Pearson Publishing 2011

2. • Samuel P. Huntington: “The most important distinction
between countries concerns not their form but their degree
of government.”
• Premise of this chapter: The state and society are linked
through different forms of political participation. Some
states can handle these demands and govern effectively.
Others are overwhelmed by them and experience a crisis
of governability - the government rules but does not
govern.
State and Society
Pearson Publishing 2011

3. • Occurs in democratic and authoritarian political systems
• Occurs in many different forms
• Legitimate - voting, running for office
• Furtive - satire, rumor
• Violent revolt
• Depends on the opportunity structure created by the
political system
• Groups engage in different forms of political participation
depending upon the opportunities for influence different political
structures create
• Ex: European political systems create more opportunity for Green
Parties, while the US political system creates more opportunity for
green interest groups.
Political Participation

4. • Groups are always seeking the weakest point of political
access, depending on the resources political actors can
mobilize and their opportunities to deploy them...
• Engaging different forms of participation simultaneously
• environmental parties and interest groups
• One form of participation paving the way for another
• elections in Serbia, the Ukraine, and Iran triggered mass protests
• Or engaging in different types of participation sequentially
• US Civil Rights Movement
Political Participation

5. • There is an inextricable link between political participation
and improving people’s capabilities.
• People cannot create institutional structures on their own they must act collectively to succeed
• Four types of collective action linking state and society:
•
•
•
•
Political Parties
Interest Groups
Social Movements
Patron-Client Relations
Political Participation

6. • Emerge where people have diverse interests and
values
• Actively recruit and nominate candidates for public
office (unlike other forms of political participation)
• Criticisms:
•
•
•
•
they threaten the unity of the political order
corruption
pandering to special interests
they serve the needs of office-seekers, not greater society
Political Parties

7. • The ideal unified political community is a myth people have diverse interests and values
• Despite their disadvantages, parties help structure
political conflict and organize government
• Parties “stage the battle”... formulating issues, giving
them relevance, and then offering a choice of
candidates from those issues
Why Parties?

8. • In Democratic
Systems:
• Parties compete to win
elections and form
governments
• A sense of what the public
wants is transmitted
through party competition
• In Authoritarian
Systems:
• Parties are common even in
absence of competitive
elections
• Used to convey government
policies down to the people
and promote legitimacy
Political Parties

9. • Entail stable forms of party competition
• Distinguished by:
• The number of parties they include
• multi-party systems (3+) are much more common than the US
two-party system
• Ideological breadth
• Degree of institutionalization
• strong vs. weak parties
Party Systems

10. Characteristics
Weak Parties
Strong Parties
Membership
Low
High
Party Identification
among Voters
Low
High
Electoral Volatility
High
Low
Party Unity in the
Legislature
Low
High
In Brief:
Strong vs. Weak Political Parties

11. • What shapes party systems?
• Deeply rooted social divisions
• Ex: Western democracies are still shaped by key historical
conflicts (class, urban-rural, national-local, and church-state)
• Electoral Laws
• Ex: winner-take-all laws in most US elections create bias
toward a two-party system, while proportional representation
laws in many European elections create bias toward multiparty systems
Party Systems

12. • Not all parties and party systems are created equal. Some
contribute more to developing citizens’ capabilities than
others.
• The quality of the link between state and society through
political parties depends on the level of party organization,
discipline, and program articulation
• Programmatic parties - link citizens using a broad appeal
and common party program
• Poorly-institutionalized parties, parties built around
personalities, and parties built on patronage
Evaluating Parties

13. • Immediately following the US invasion ethnic groups in Iraq
(Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis) used bullets not ballots to influence
the government and settle disputes
• In March 2010 legislative elections were held in which all
groups participated
• Charges were brought of vote tampering and coercion, but
62% of eligible Iraqi voters participated
• The results were as indecisive and divided as the overall society
• It is unclear whether Iraq’s political institutions will be capable
of withstanding the political conflict over ballots, or whether
Iraqis will again turn to bullets
In Brief:
Iraq - From Bullets to Ballots (and back)

14. • Form when people with common interests organize
for the purpose of influencing policy-makers
• Engage in many of the same activities as political
parties - including raising money, mobilizing voters,
campaigning for candidates
• DO NOT, however, nominate candidates to run for
office
Interest Groups

15. • Interest Group formation faces a number of challenges:
• require resources, time, and leadership
• Free-Rider Problem - individuals rationally seek the
benefits without the costs of membership
• These challenges can be overcome, however:
• material and non-material incentives
• technological innovations (i.e.: the internet)
• professional advocacy organizations
Interest Groups

16. • The political structures of a country affect interest groups
just as they affect political parties
• The number of interest groups
• divided, decentralized policy-making structures allow for more
interest groups because there are multiple points of access (ex:
US)
• unitary, centralized structures limit access and the number of
interest groups (ex: Sweden)
• The type of interest groups
• pluralist systems vs. corporatist systems
Interest Groups

17. Characteristics
Pluralist Groups
Corporatist Groups
(Ex: US, Canada, Italy)
(Ex: Austria, Sweden)
Number of Interest
Groups
Many
Few
Internal Organization
Decentralized
Hierarchical
Coverage
Low density
Encompassing
Relationship to
Government
Lobbying
Participates in policymaking
In Brief:
Pluralist and Corporatist Interest Groups

18. Table 3.1

19. • Interest group behavior has consequences for people’s
capabilities
• The quality of the link between state and society through
interest groups depends on their level of cooperation and
efficiency
• Pluralist interest groups compete, preventing cooperation and
efficiency
• Corporate interest groups do not experience these problems,
and can achieve broader appeal
• Fewer and bigger really is better.
Evaluating Interest Groups

20. • Comparing social movements and interest groups/political
parties:
• Engage in more unconventional and confrontational forms of
political participation
• From peaceful assemblies to protest marches
• Not as formally organized or hierarchical, either
• More ideological and contentious
• Require a more demanding level of participation
• Often personal attendance or sacrifice
• Seek to promote group acceptance and enact changes in
policy
Social Movements

21. • The emergence of social movements was facilitated by the spread
of democracy
• Early social movements focused on economic demands (1700s)
• Post-industrial social movements addressed cultural divides as
well as economic ones
• New social movements had more decentralized structures
because they were distrustful of bureaucracy
• Ex: 1997 Nobel Peace Prize and the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines
• Increasing global interdependence has led to the growth of
international-level social movements
• Ex: World Social Forum
Social Movements

22. • A system in which a patron offers or withholds some
material benefit in return for political support
• Ex: access to work or land, school tuition, medical care, etc.
• Most common in countries with widespread poverty and
lawlessness where the “haves” are in a position to bargain
for support from the “have-nots”
• Based on norms of reciprocity
• Continuous and direct contact between patron and client
reinforce these feelings of obligation
• There is a mutually-reinforcing relationship between
clientelism and poverty
Patron-Client Relations

23. • Weak states become overloaded by the demands of state-society
linkages such as political parties, interest groups, social movements,
and patron-client relations
• Crisis of Governability - the government rules but does not
effectively govern
• Ex: the lack of effective public health infrastructures in Africa
contribute to the AIDS epidemic
• Often weak states cannot even maintain law and order, exerting little
authority beyond the capital city
• Ex: the Taliban effectively rules over rural portions of Afghanistan
and Pakistan
• Corruption is often high in weak states
Weak States

24. • Strong states are able to effectively respond to the
demands of state-society linkages, transforming these
demands into executed policy
• Effectively maintain law and order, collect taxes, execute
policies, and enjoy high levels of popular legitimacy
• Governments in strong states also have autonomy from
public pressures
• They are equipped to respond to social pressures, but are
simultaneously insulated from conflict and can act in the
public interest
Strong States

25. • Are stronger states better at promoting
people’s capabilities?
• Yes, considering indicators such as infant mortality, literacy
rates, political violence, and democracy
Weak vs. Strong States

26. Figure 3.1

27. Figure 3.2

28. Figure 3.3

29. Figure 3.4

30. • Linkages between state and society include political
parties, interest groups, social movements, and patronclient relationships
• Citizens engage in these forms of political participation
depending on the resources they have and their
opportunities to deploy them
• Strong states can manage the flow of demands through
these linkages and govern effectively
• Weak states become overwhelmed and suffer a crisis of
governability
• Strong states are more conducive to developing citizens’
capabilities than weak states
Conclusions

31. • Is more political participation by citizens always better? Can
there be too much of a good thing when it comes to political
participation?
• Can democracy exist without political parties?
• What are some of the differences distinguishing political
parties, interest groups, social movements, and patron-client
relations as forms of political participation? Under what
circumstances do people use one as opposed to the other form
of participation?
• How would you operationally define strong and weak states?
• What can be done to improve state quality; to transform failed
states into sustainable states?
Critical Thinking Questions

32. • This is the question asked by Putnam’s book Making
Democracy Work.
• Compares effectiveness of 15 regional governments in 1970s
Italy
• The governments on paper looked identical, but had very
different levels of government effectiveness
• Hypothesis: that regional institutions in Italy would be
shaped by and reflect the social context in which they
operated
Comparative Political Analysis:
Why do some political institutions work better than others?

33. • Good performance depended on:
• the ability of institutions to manage internal affairs
• the appropriateness and extensiveness of legislative
solutions
• bureaucratic responsiveness
• Results: The regional institutions with the best
performance were located in areas with a high
levels of civic trust and many local organizations
Comparative Political Analysis:
Why do some political institutions work better than others?